Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Deepak Sood vs . State. on 23 February, 2012

                                                  1

                                                                         Deepak Sood Vs. State.
                                                                                   C. A. No. 23/12


                                       Challan No. ­977779 ( Vehicle No. DL­8SV­4926)
                                                                           U/s­185 of M.V.  Act  
                                                                   Traffic  Circle­Model Town

23.02.2012

 Present : Sh. Anil Anand, counsel for  the appellant with appellant in person.  

             Addl. PP for  respondent­State.

TCR not called for as attested true copy of order dated 30.01.2012 has already been filed with the appeal.

Heard. File perused.

The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant Deepak Sood against the impugned order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in Challan No. 977779, u/s.185 of M.V. Act, Traffic Circle­Model Town, whereby the appellant has been sentenced for fine of Rs.2,000/­ and to undergo SI for a period of two days and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of five days in respect of offence u/s.185 M.V. Act.

I have heard the arguments on appeal put forward by Ld. counsel for the appellant and ld. Addl.PP for the respondent­State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully perused the order dated 30.01.2012.

During the course of the arguments, Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant u/s­ 185 of 2 M.V. Act, however, he further submits that the convict is not a previous convict and is having clean antecedents. Ld. counsel for the appellant also submits that the convict belongs to a respectable family and that at present convict is only 24 years old and also pursuing his career and he prays that in view of the fact and circumstances of the present case, a lenient view may be taken as regard the sentence imposed by the Ld. Trial Court.

Let the statement of Ld. counsel for the appellant/convict be recorded.

ASJ (N­W)­01 Rohini/Delhi 23.02.2012 Statement of Sh. Anil Anand, Ld. counsel for the appellant/convict­ Deepak Sood.

At Bar.

I am the counsel for the appellant /convict­ Deepak Sood in the present appeal. I have the instructions to state that the appellant/ convict does not want to challenge his conviction u/s - 185 of M..V. Act in terms of impugned order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken as regard the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Ld. Trial Court.

RO&AC                                                                      ASJ (N­W)­01
                                                                           Rohini/Delhi
                                                                           23.02.2012
                                                    3

On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP submits that in view of the nature of offence, appropriate sentence have been imposed by the Ld. Trial Court and he prays that the present appeal filed on behalf of the appellant may be dismissed.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Ld.counsel for the appellant and Ld. Addl.PP for the respondent­State and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

In the present case, the appellant/convict­ Deepak Sood has been convicted u/s­ 185 of M.V. Act and has been sentenced to undergo SI for two days for offence u/s.185 of M.V. Act and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/­ for offence u/s.185 M.V. Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 5 days.

Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant/convict recorded by the ld. Trial Court. In these circumstances, since the conviction is not being challenged, the order dated 30.01.2012 of the Ld. Trial Court , whereby the appellant have been convicted u/s ­ 185 of M.V. Act is hereby upheld.

As far as the order on the point of sentence is concerned, it has been submitted by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the appellant/convict is not a previous convict and is having clean antecedents. It is also submitted that the convict belongs to a respectable family and it is prayed that in view of the fact and circumstances of the present case, a lenient view may be taken as regard the sentence imposed by the Ld. Trial Court.

In view of the above and having regard to the submissions made by Ld.counsel for the appellant and Ld. Addl.PP for the respondent­State and in view 4 of the fact and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, the order on the point of sentence dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Ld.Trial Court is modified to the extent that order of simple imprisonment of two days is set aside. However, convict Deepak Sood is directed to deposit further amount of Rs.1,000/­ with DLSA and Rs.1,000/­ in Advocate's Welfare Fund, in lieu of imprisonment.

At this stage, convict - Deepak Sood prays for two days time to deposit the fine amount. Heard. Allowed. Compliance report be filed before the Court along with the copy of receipt of deposit of fine within two days from today, failing which, order of sentence of imprisonment of two days shall stand revived as it is.

Copy of this order be supplied to the appellant - Deepak Sood, free of cost.

Copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.

(Announced in the  open Court )                                  (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 23.02.2012)                                      Addl. Session Judge
                                                              (North­West)­01
                                                                Rohini/Delhi